Section 12 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Facts Showing Existence of State of Mind, Body or Bodily Feeling

Understand Section 12 BSA, 2023, with its legal provisions, illustrations, examples, landmark judgments and exam-focused notes.

Introduction

Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the relevancy of facts that indicate a person’s state of mind, physical condition or bodily feeling. It is an important provision under Chapter II of the Act, which governs the relevancy of facts.

In legal proceedings, a court often needs to determine not only what a person did but also what the person knew, intended, believed or felt at the relevant time. For example, in a criminal case involving stolen property, the prosecution may need to establish that the accused knew the property was stolen. Similarly, in a negligence claim, the court may need to determine whether a person knew about a particular danger before an accident occurred.

Section 12 allows relevant facts to be considered when they help establish a state of mind, state of body or bodily feeling that is in issue or otherwise relevant to the case.

The provision is important in criminal trials, negligence claims, fraud disputes, defamation cases and other proceedings where intention, knowledge, good faith or physical condition must be established.

Section 12 of the BSA substantially corresponds to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It came into force on 1 July 2024, along with the BSA.

Bare Act: Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 12 provides:

“Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.”

The section contains two explanations.

Explanation 1: A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2: Where, in the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of the section, the previous conviction of that person is also a relevant fact.

These explanations are important because they distinguish evidence relating to a particular issue from evidence that merely suggests a person’s general character or disposition.

Meaning of Section 12 BSA

In simple terms, Section 12 makes evidence about a person’s mental or physical condition relevant when that condition matters to the case.

A state of mind may include intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill. A state of body or bodily feeling may include a person’s physical condition, symptoms, pain or other bodily sensations relevant to the matter before the court.

For example, A is accused of knowingly receiving stolen goods. If A possessed several other stolen articles at the same time, this fact may help the court assess whether A knew that the particular article was stolen.

Similarly, if B is sued because a dangerous dog injured A, evidence that the dog had previously bitten other people and that complaints had been made to B may be relevant to whether B knew about the dog’s dangerous nature.

In both examples, the evidence helps establish a specific state of knowledge relevant to the dispute.

However, Section 12 does not mean that every past act or personal characteristic is admissible. The fact must be connected to the particular state of mind, body or bodily feeling that is in issue or relevant.

Essential Elements of Section 12 BSA

1. A relevant state of mind, body or bodily feeling must be involved

The first requirement is that the person’s mental or physical condition must be in issue or otherwise relevant to the case.

Examples include:

• Intention to cause death or injury.
• Knowledge that property was stolen.
• Good faith when making a representation.
• Negligence concerning a known defect.
• Ill-will towards a person in a defamation dispute.
• Physical symptoms relevant to determining the cause of death.

If the person’s mental or physical condition has no meaningful connection with the matter under consideration, Section 12 cannot be used merely to introduce unrelated evidence.

2. The evidence must help establish the particular state

The fact relied upon must have a logical connection with the relevant mental or physical condition.

For example, earlier threats directed at a particular person may be relevant to determining whether a later act against that person was intentional. By contrast, a general tendency to behave aggressively does not automatically establish an intention to commit a particular offence.

The court must assess the connection between the evidence and the issue it is intended to prove.

3. The state of mind must relate to the particular matter

Explanation 1 is a central feature of Section 12. It requires the relevant state of mind to be connected with the particular matter in question, rather than established merely as a general disposition.

For example, if A is accused of intentionally shooting B, evidence that A previously shot at B may be relevant to A’s intention in the particular incident.

However, evidence that A generally had a habit of shooting at people with an intention to kill them is not relevant under this principle merely because it suggests a criminal disposition.

This distinction helps prevent courts from deciding cases on the basis of prejudice or general assumptions about a person’s character.

4. Relevant facts do not automatically prove guilt or liability

Section 12 deals with the relevancy of evidence. It does not make every relevant fact conclusive proof of the mental or physical state alleged.

The court must assess the evidence alongside the other circumstances of the case and apply the appropriate standard of proof.

For example, possession of several stolen articles may support an inference of knowledge, but the court must consider the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion.

Types of States Covered Under Section 12

1. Intention

Intention refers to the mental purpose or objective behind an act. It may be relevant where the court must determine whether an act was deliberate or whether a particular consequence was intended.

Example: A is accused of shooting B with the intention of killing him. Evidence that A previously threatened B or previously shot at B may be relevant to determining A’s intention in the particular incident, subject to the applicable rules of evidence.

2. Knowledge

Knowledge refers to awareness of a relevant fact or circumstance.

Example: A is accused of knowingly receiving stolen goods. Evidence that A possessed several other stolen articles at the same time may be relevant to whether A knew that the article in question was stolen.

3. Good Faith

Good faith may become relevant where a person’s honest belief or conduct is material to a legal dispute.

Example: A represents that C is financially solvent, and B relies on that representation. Evidence that C was generally believed to be solvent by neighbours and business associates may be relevant to whether A made the representation in good faith.

Whether the conduct satisfies the applicable legal definition of good faith is a separate question.

4. Negligence

Negligence may involve a failure to take reasonable care in circumstances where the person knew or ought to have known of a relevant risk.

Also Read: Section 3 – Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts – BSA 2023

Example: A hires a vehicle from B, and the vehicle has a known mechanical defect. Evidence that B had previously been specifically informed of the defect may be relevant to whether B knew about the danger.

Section 12 distinguishes evidence concerning the particular defect from evidence that B was generally careless in the business of hiring vehicles.

5. Rashness

Rashness refers to conduct involving a relevant degree of disregard for the consequences or risks of an act. Evidence of the circumstances surrounding the act may help determine whether the conduct was rash.

For example, evidence of a person’s awareness of a specific danger may be relevant when the court considers whether the person’s conduct was rash, subject to the applicable substantive law.

6. Ill-Will or Goodwill

Ill-will or goodwill towards a particular person may be relevant when the relationship between the parties or the person’s attitude helps explain a disputed act.

Example: A is accused of publishing a statement about B with the intention of harming B’s reputation. Previous publications by A concerning B that demonstrate hostility may be relevant to the intention behind the particular publication.

The absence of a previous quarrel, or evidence that A merely repeated information received from another source, may also be relevant to assessing intention in the circumstances described by the statutory illustration.

7. State of Body or Bodily Feeling

Section 12 also covers facts that show a person’s physical condition or bodily sensations when those matters are relevant to the case.

Examples include:

• Symptoms experienced by a person during an illness.
• Statements describing pain or physical discomfort.
• Evidence of a person’s health at a relevant time.
• Physical symptoms that may help determine the cause of death.

The admissibility of a particular statement or record must still be assessed under the applicable provisions of the BSA. Section 12 does not automatically make every statement about health admissible regardless of the circumstances in which it was made.

Explanation 1: Specific State of Mind Versus General Disposition

Explanation 1 is particularly important for examinations and practical application.

It provides that a fact used to establish a relevant state of mind must show that the state exists in relation to the particular matter, not merely as a general characteristic.

The distinction can be understood through the following examples:

Evidence	Relevance under Section 12
A previously threatened B and is later accused of intentionally attacking B	The threat may be relevant to A’s intention in the particular incident
A previously shot at B and is later accused of intentionally shooting B	The earlier incident may be relevant to the specific intention concerning B
A is generally known to be aggressive	General aggressiveness does not, by itself, establish intention in the particular incident
A is habitually negligent in an unrelated activity	The general habit is not automatically relevant to a specific allegation of negligence
A knew of a particular defect in a vehicle that later caused an accident	The specific knowledge may be relevant to the negligence claim

The principle is that the court should focus on evidence connected with the particular issue, rather than treating a person’s general character as proof of the alleged conduct.

Explanation 2: Relevance of Previous Conviction

Explanation 2 provides that where the previous commission of an offence by an accused is relevant under Section 12, the accused’s previous conviction is also a relevant fact.

The provision does not create a general rule that an accused person’s previous convictions are always admissible. The previous offence must first be relevant under the section.

This distinction is important because the law generally prevents a person’s past criminal record from being used merely to suggest that the person is likely to have committed the present offence.

The relevance of the previous offence and the previous conviction must be assessed under the applicable evidentiary rules.

Important Illustrations Under Section 12 BSA

The statutory illustrations demonstrate how evidence may establish a specific state of mind, body or bodily feeling.

Illustration 1: Receiving Stolen Goods

A is accused of receiving a particular stolen article, knowing that it was stolen. Evidence shows that A possessed that article and several other stolen articles at the same time.

The possession of the other stolen articles is relevant because it may support the inference that A knew the particular article was stolen.

Principle: Other facts may help establish knowledge concerning the specific property in question.

Illustration 2: Counterfeit Currency

A is accused of knowingly delivering counterfeit currency to another person as genuine. At the time, A possessed several other counterfeit pieces. Evidence of a previous conviction for knowingly passing counterfeit currency as genuine may also be relevant under the statutory illustration.

Principle: Relevant surrounding circumstances and a qualifying previous offence may help establish knowledge, subject to the requirements of Section 12.

Illustration 3: A Dangerous Dog

A sues B for injuries caused by B’s dog. The question is whether B knew that the dog was dangerous.

Evidence that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had complained to B, is relevant.

Principle: Previous incidents and complaints may establish a person’s knowledge of a specific danger.

Illustration 4: A Fictitious Payee

A accepts a bill of exchange. The question is whether A knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.

Evidence that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted by the supposed payee, had the payee been real, may be relevant to A’s knowledge.

Principle: Earlier transactions may reveal knowledge concerning the particular transaction under investigation.

Illustration 5: Defamation and Intention to Harm

A is accused of publishing an imputation about B with the intention of harming B’s reputation.

Previous publications by A concerning B that demonstrate ill-will may be relevant. Conversely, the absence of a previous quarrel and evidence that A repeated the statement as it was heard may be relevant to whether A intended to cause harm.

Principle: Evidence of a person’s relationship and particular conduct may help establish or rebut the alleged intention.

Illustration 6: Fraudulent Representation

A is sued for fraudulently representing that C was solvent, causing B to trust C and suffer loss.

Evidence that C was believed to be solvent by neighbours and persons dealing with C at the relevant time may be relevant to whether A made the representation in good faith.

Principle: The circumstances known or reasonably available to the person making a representation may help establish the person’s state of mind.

Illustration 7: Dishonest Misappropriation

A is accused of dishonestly misappropriating property that A had found. The question is whether A honestly believed that the owner could not be found.

Evidence that a public notice about the loss had been issued in the place where A was present may be relevant to whether A genuinely held that belief. However, evidence that A knew the notice was fraudulent may affect the inference drawn from A’s awareness of it.

Principle: Evidence must be assessed in context, including circumstances that support or undermine the alleged state of mind.

Also Read: Section 11 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Facts Relevant When Right or Custom Is in Question

Illustration 8: Previous Threats or Attempts Against a Particular Person

A is accused of shooting at B with the intention of killing B. Evidence that A previously shot at B may be relevant to the specific intention alleged.

Similarly, threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be relevant to the intention behind later letters.

Principle: Evidence directed at the same person may be relevant to the particular intention in issue.

Illustration 9: Statements About Physical Symptoms

The question is whether A’s death was caused by poison. Statements made by A during the illness describing A’s symptoms are relevant under the statutory illustration.

Similarly, where the question concerns A’s health at the time a life insurance policy was taken out, statements made by A about A’s health at or near that time may be relevant.

Principle: Evidence about bodily symptoms or physical condition may assist the court in determining a relevant physical state, subject to the applicable rules of admissibility.

Illustration 10: Specific Negligence Versus Habitual Negligence

A sues B for providing a hired vehicle that was not reasonably fit for use, resulting in injury. Evidence that B had previously been specifically informed of a defect in that particular vehicle is relevant.

However, evidence that B was habitually negligent about vehicles hired out to customers is identified in the statutory illustration as irrelevant under this provision.

Principle: Evidence of knowledge concerning a particular defect is different from evidence of a general tendency to be negligent.

Important Case Laws Relating to Section 12 BSA

Section 12 of the BSA substantially corresponds to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Earlier judicial decisions interpreting Section 14 remain useful for understanding the principle, subject to the applicable transitional law. The following cases illustrate the distinction between evidence of a specific state of mind and evidence of general criminal disposition.

1. Emperor v. Panchu Das and Goberdhone Singh

Citation: AIR 1920 Cal 500

Legal principle: The Calcutta High Court considered the limits of Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to evidence of previous similar criminal conduct. The court emphasised that the section cannot be used simply to establish a general disposition to commit crimes where the required specific state of mind is not in issue.

Relevance to Section 12 BSA: The decision illustrates the importance of Explanation 1. Evidence of previous acts must be connected to the particular state of mind that is relevant to the case. A person’s alleged criminal tendencies cannot automatically substitute for proof of the particular offence.

2. Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia v. State

Citation: AIR 1966 Bom 54

Legal principle: The Bombay High Court discussed Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act and the distinction between evidence of a general criminal tendency and facts showing a state of mind concerning a particular matter.

Relevance to Section 12 BSA: The decision supports the principle that evidence of a previous act must be assessed for its connection with the particular issue. It also distinguishes the relevance of state-of-mind evidence under Section 14 from the separate rule governing similar occurrences under Section 15 of the old Act, corresponding to Section 13 of the BSA.

3. Chandrakant Jha v. State

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2015 and Death Reference No. 2 of 2013, Delhi High Court, decided on 27 January 2016

Legal principle: The Delhi High Court discussed the distinction between bad-character evidence and similar-fact evidence while considering Sections 14 and 15 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Relevance to Section 12 BSA: The judgment explains why evidence of a specific state of mind must be distinguished from evidence that merely portrays a person as having a criminal or immoral disposition. It is useful for understanding the restrictions imposed by Explanation 1 and the separate statutory treatment of similar occurrences.

These decisions interpret the former Indian Evidence Act rather than Section 12 of the BSA itself. Their relevance lies in the continuity of the statutory language and principle; they should not be described as judgments directly interpreting the new provision.

Difference Between Section 12 and Section 13 of the BSA

Section 12 and Section 13 address related but distinct evidentiary questions.

Basis	Section 12 BSA	Section 13 BSA
Main subject	Facts showing a state of mind, body or bodily feeling	Facts bearing on whether an act was accidental or intentional
Focus	Intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence and related states	Whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with particular knowledge or intention
Relevant evidence	Facts connected to a particular mental or physical state	A series of similar occurrences involving the person concerned
Key limitation	The state of mind must relate to the particular matter	The similar occurrences must be relevant to the question specified in the section

Section 12 focuses on evidence indicating a relevant state of mind or physical condition. Section 13 separately addresses a series of similar occurrences when the question is whether a particular act was accidental or intentional.

Difference Between Section 12 BSA and General Character Evidence

Section 12 should not be confused with the provisions governing character evidence.

Evidence of a specific intention or knowledge may be relevant under Section 12. However, evidence that a person generally has a bad character or a tendency to commit offences is not automatically admissible to prove that the person committed the offence in question.

For example, a previous threat against the victim may be relevant to a specific allegation of intentional harm. A general allegation that the accused is an aggressive person does not, by itself, establish the intention required for the offence.

The court must determine whether the evidence genuinely relates to the specific issue and whether it is admissible under the applicable provisions.

Importance of Section 12 for Law Students

Section 12 is important for law school examinations, judicial service examinations and practical criminal and civil litigation.

The essential points to remember are:

• Section 12 BSA corresponds substantially to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• It covers intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, goodwill and relevant states of body or bodily feeling.
• Evidence is relevant only when the particular state of mind or body is in issue or otherwise relevant.
• Explanation 1 requires a connection with the particular matter, not merely a general disposition.
• Explanation 2 addresses previous convictions where the previous offence is itself relevant under the section.
• The statutory illustrations distinguish specific knowledge or intention from general habits or tendencies.
• Section 13 BSA separately deals with facts bearing on whether an act was accidental or intentional.
• Relevance does not mean that the fact conclusively proves guilt or liability.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 12 makes facts showing a relevant state of mind, body or bodily feeling admissible as relevant facts when that state is in issue or otherwise relevant to the case.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 12 BSA?

Section 12 of the BSA substantially corresponds to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. What types of mental states are covered under Section 12?

The provision expressly refers to intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will and goodwill towards a particular person. It also covers relevant states of body and bodily feeling.

4. What is the importance of Explanation 1?

Explanation 1 requires the evidence to show the state of mind in relation to the particular matter in question, rather than merely demonstrating a general disposition.

5. Is evidence of previous criminal conduct always relevant under Section 12?

No. Previous conduct is not automatically relevant merely because it suggests a criminal tendency. It must satisfy the requirements of the provision and be connected with the relevant state of mind.

6. What is the purpose of Explanation 2?

Explanation 2 provides that where the previous commission of an offence is relevant under Section 12, the accused’s previous conviction for that offence is also a relevant fact.

7. Can evidence of a person’s physical condition be relevant under Section 12?

Yes. Facts concerning symptoms, bodily sensations or health may be relevant when the physical condition is in issue or otherwise relevant to the case. The applicable rules governing admissibility must still be satisfied.

8. What is the difference between Section 12 and Section 13 BSA?

Section 12 deals with facts showing a relevant state of mind, body or bodily feeling. Section 13 addresses facts bearing on whether an act was accidental or intentional, including a relevant series of similar occurrences.

Conclusion

Section 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is an important rule governing the relevancy of evidence about a person’s mental and physical condition. It enables courts to consider facts that help establish intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will and other relevant states of mind, as well as bodily conditions and feelings.

Its central principle is that evidence must relate to the particular matter in question. A specific threat, prior knowledge of a dangerous defect or contemporaneous statement about physical symptoms may be relevant, while evidence of a general criminal tendency or habitual negligence may not be relevant under this provision.

For examination purposes, the most important points are the statutory illustrations, the two explanations, the distinction between specific state-of-mind evidence and general character evidence, and the relationship between Section 12 and Section 13 of the BSA.